Political Animal

FRIED CALAMARI….James Lileks has only

FRIED CALAMARI….James Lileks has only had fried calamari once? On an Italian vacation?

I had calamari in Italy once, during a trip to Herculaneum. It had been caught that very day. They didn?t chop it or de-tentacle it; they just rolled it in crumbs and tossed it in the oil. You could still see the black eyeballs, and you couldn?t help but realize you were eating BRAINS. Yes, brains. Sweeet, delicious BRAINS.

He makes it sound like some strange tribal ritual unheard of in modern America. I mean, sure, he lives in the midwest and all, but surely they’ve at least got an Olive Garden or something he could try.

And is it just me, or does it seem like something called the Thursday Fish Feast really ought to be scheduled for, you know, Thursday?

OBSCURE NATIVE RITUALS….Chris Bertram points

OBSCURE NATIVE RITUALS….Chris Bertram points us to Kenan Malik’s blog, where he is upset over this news report from New Zealand:

Work on a section of the new highway between Mercer and Long Swamp, dubbed the “Waikato Expressway”, has been put on hold after local Maori said they believe there is a taniwha in the way. Local Maori claim the taniwha – or guardian spirit – is lurking somewhere in swampland near Meremere.

….Transit New Zealand will not be interviewed but says it issued the stopwork order out of respect for Maori culture. A meeting is scheduled between roading authorities and local Maori to decide what happens next.

Kenan is appalled by this:

To take seriously Maori beliefs about the taniwha, and to view respect for such beliefs as the basis of Maori rights, is to suggest that Maoris possess rights, not by virtue of being rational political actors, but as a consequence of holding irrational cultural beliefs. It is to resurrect a Romantic, ‘Noble Savage’ view of Maoris and to assess their rights on a different basis from which we assess other peoples’ rights.

But compare these “irrational cultural beliefs” to this quote from the Chicago Tribune about a pair of cemeteries that are on the grounds of O’Hare Airport. The churches were moved away years ago, so why are they still there?

Said John Carr, acting airport manager: “It is a very costly thing to move cemeteries.” The legal complications of moving bodies are formidable, Maynard Marks, secretary of the Cemetery Association of Greater Chicago, agreed.

“If the state has to move one body to route a highway, it will reroute the highway,” he said.

As Kieran Healy pointed out in a hilarious post a few days ago, it is all too easy to ignore the fact that our own rituals and beliefs are every bit as stylized and irrational as anyone’s, something that anthropologists frequently have good natured fun with. Would Kenan have felt the same way if a local Christian group had protested the highway because its route took it through a cemetery?

It’s often the case that the true root of these kinds of disputes is a belief by a non-majority group that they are not being taken seriously. This has certainly been the case in Hawaii, where scientists have built telescopes on Mauna Kea with wild abandon for the past decade and simply dismissed out of hand native concerns about desecration of temples. Eventually protesters got their attention, but the problem probably could have been avoided entirely by simply treating their requests with respect from the start.

My guess is that Transit New Zealand has learned this lesson. Certainly governments are not obliged to automatically defer to religious belief ? quite the contrary ? but by taking the Maori religion as seriously as we take Christianity, the situation will probably be defused fairly quickly and an adequate compromise reached. And it will be done not by treating the Maori as noble savages, but simply by treating them as equals.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST….Two excerpts from

COMPARE AND CONTRAST….Two excerpts from articles about George Bush today. First, from Ron Brownstein’s review of three books about Bush:

What none of these books adequately explain is why Bush has been so confrontational and ideological in shaping his domestic agenda. As governor of Texas, he was a consensus-builder who routinely reached out to Democrats: He made substantive compromises on all of his major priorities in the state

His pattern as president has been very different. He has consistently aimed his proposals (from tax cuts to energy) at the interests of the Republican base, and he has usually resisted compromise unless absolutely necessary. With a restored Republican majority in Congress, Bush is now advancing an agenda that envisions another round of massive tax cuts, large increases in defense spending and sustained federal deficits that choke off domestic spending.

Next, this excerpt from Richard Reeves’ column:

[Washington] is a scary place. Not many people here believe Bush when he says he sees war as a last resort. From here, Bush the impatient, Bush the hater, seems ready to go to war no matter what happens — as if sending tens of thousands of soldiers far from home out there in the desert is reason enough to attack.

….There are words he likes; “commander” is one. Even his weird talk, the jumbled stuff, is sometimes revealing. Exactly a month before taking office, after the chaos of vote-counting in Florida, the new president-elect talked of the job this way: “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier. Just as long as I’m the dictator.”

That is from one scary Texan. There is some kind of anger in the man alone, hostility that sometimes seems barely under control — as if he were, in street language, being “disrespected.”

In the same way that conservatives had some kind of visceral loathing for Bill Clinton, I think this is the side of the Bush that sets liberal teeth on edge. It’s not so much that he’s dumb, it’s that he seems so petty, smallminded, and downright mean, someone who treats politics like a take-no-hostages siege where the goal is not the solution of problems but the utter humiliation of your opponents. I can understand someone liking his policies, but I find it hard to understand someone liking the man.